On April 26, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released their final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rio Grande LNG Project, which was proposed by Rio Grande LNG, LLC and Rio Grande Pipeline Company, LLC. The developers requested authorization to “site, construct, and operate the following facilities in Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron Counties, Texas:

• “six liquefaction trains would be constructed and operated at the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas (LNG) Terminal, each with a nominal capacity of 4.5 million tons per annum of LNG for export, resulting in the LNG Terminal’s nominal capacity of 27.0 million tons per annum;
• “four LNG storage tanks, each with a net capacity of 180,000 cubic meters;

• “LNG truck loading facilities with four loading bays, each with the capacity to load 12 to 15 trucks per day;
• “a refrigerant storage area and truck unloading facilities;
• “a condensate storage area and truck loading facilities;

• “a new marine slip with two LNG vessel berths to accommodate simultaneous loading of two LNG vessels, an LNG vessel and support vessel maneuvering area, and an LNG transfer system;
• “a materials off-loading facility in the Brownsville Ship Channel;

• “2.4 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, including 0.8 mile of dual pipeline, to gather gas from existing systems in Kleberg and Jim Wells Counties (referred to as the Header System);
• “135.5 miles of parallel 42-inch-diameter pipelines originating in Kleberg County and terminating at the Rio Grande LNG Terminal in Cameron County (referred to as Pipelines 1 and 2);

• “four stand-alone metering sites along the Header System;
• “three new compressor stations (one at the LNG Terminal site);
• “two new interconnect booster compressor stations, each with a metering site; and
• “other associated utilities, systems, and facilities (yards, access roads, etc.).”

The Impact Statement was “prepared in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500–1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380).”

While FERC staff made the conclusions and recommendations in the Impact Statement, FERC did receive input from “the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Marine Fisheries Service.” While FERC received their input while making their decisions, these agencies may still develop their own recommendations for the Project, “if, after an independent review of the document, they conclude that their permitting requirements have been satisfied.”

FERC concluded that the construction and operation of the Project would have some adverse impacts on the environment, but they could be significantly reduced. But, this Project, “combined with other projects within the geographic scope, would result in certain significant cumulative impacts.” This was determined through a review of information provided by the Rio Grande Developers, and was “further developed from data requests; field investigations; literature research; geospatial analysis; alternatives analysis; public comments and scoping sessions; and coordination with federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes.” There are multiple reasons the Project could reduce the impact of the to less significant levels, but the main reasons are:

• “The LNG Facility site would be in an area currently zoned for commercial and industrial use, along an existing, man-made ship channel.
• “The pipelines would be collocated with, or adjacent to, other disturbed right-of-way corridors for about 66.0 percent of the routes.
• “The pipelines would be installed by trenchless methods (horizontal directional drill [HDD] or bore) where applicable to avoid impacts on all major perennial streams (i.e., streams over 100 feet wide), as well as many smaller waterbodies, wetlands, and road crossings.

• “RG Developers would follow the Project-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans; Unanticipated Contaminated Sediment and Soils Discovery Plan; Unanticipated Discovery Plan (for cultural resources); HDD Contingency Plan; Fugitive Dust Control Plans; Noxious and Invasive Weed Plan; and Migratory Bird Conservation Plan.
• “The U.S. Coast Guard issued a Letter of Recommendation indicating the Brownsville Ship Channel would be considered suitable for the LNG marine traffic associated with the Project.
• “The LNG Terminal design would include acceptable layers of protection or safeguards that would reduce the risk of a potentially hazardous scenario from developing into an event that could impact the offsite public.

• “The pipelines and associated above ground facilities would be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with DOT standards published in 49 CFR 192.
• “RG Developers would implement their Project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures to minimize construction impacts on soils, wetlands, and waterbodies.

• “All appropriate consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding federally listed threatened and endangered species would be completed before construction is allowed to start in any given area.
• “Consultation under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is complete, and NMFS does not have essential fish habitat conservation recommendations for the Project.

• “All appropriate National Historic Preservation Act consultations with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would be completed before construction is allowed to start in any given area.
• “RG Developers would follow an environmental inspection program, including Environmental Inspectors, to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC authorizations. FERC staff would conduct inspections throughout construction, commissioning, and restoration of the Project.”

FERC also gave the Developers some site-specific measures to help mitigate the impact of both the construction and operation of the Project.

On May 1, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued their final Environmental Impact Statement for Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, a five-megawatt project, proposed by Kenai Hydro, LLC. Kenai Hydro first filed its application for the Grant Lake Project in April 2016, and after amending their application in January, May, and August, a draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in October 2018.

The Grant Lake Project will be located in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, on Grant Lake and near Grant Creek. It will “occupy 1,688.7 acres of federal lands within the Chugach National Forest, administered by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.”

FERC has identified “the primary issues associated with licensing the project are erosion and sedimentation control; protection of aquatic habitats including stream flows, water temperature and spawning gravel recruitment and movement; recreation use in the proposed project area and potential conflicts with the Iditarod National Historic Trail; and the protection of cultural resources.”

FERC “recommended the staff alternative, which consists of most measures included in Kenai Hydro’s proposal, as well as many of the mandatory conditions and recommendations made by state and federal agencies, and some additional measures developed by the staff.”

In the Statement, Kenai Hydro said they would take the following measures to protect the environment:

“Project Construction

• “Designate a third-party environmental compliance monitor (ECM) to oversee construction activities and ensure compliance with measures to protect natural resources.

• “Develop an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) that includes best management practices (BMPs) to prevent sediment mobilized during construction from entering Grant Creek or Grant Lake.

• “Restore areas disturbed by construction to pre-existing conditions.

• “Develop a hazardous materials containment/fuel storage plan that includes measures to contain all hazardous materials used during construction.

• “Consult with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to finalize design details for fish exclusion measures in the tailrace.

• “Consult with Alaska DFG’s habitat biologist to establish timing windows for instream construction and stream-crossing activities.

• “Develop a bear safety plan that includes: (1) keeping construction sites and refuse areas clear of substances that attract bears, (2) installing bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage, (3) minimizing possible conflict with bears during construction and operation, (4) establishing protocols for dealing with problem bears, 10 and (5) notifying authorities of any bear-human conflict.

“Project Operation

• “Provide the following minimum flows in the bypassed reach: 5 cfs from January 1 through July 31, 10 cfs from August 1 through September 31, 7 cfs from October 1 through October 31, and 6 cfs from November 1 through December 31 to protect aquatic habitat and support benthic macroinvertebrates.

• “Provide the following instantaneous minimum flows downstream of the tailrace: 60 cfs from January 1 through May 15, 80 cfs from May 16 through May 31, 150 cfs from June 1 through June 30, 195 cfs from July 1 through September 1, 150 cfs from September 1 through September 30, 125 cfs from October 1 through October 15, 72 cfs from October 16 through November 15, and 60 cfs from November 16 through December 31 to protect habitat for salmonids and benthic macroinvertebrates.

• “Use variable depth withdrawals from the project intake to control water temperature in Grant Creek.

• “Use variable depth withdrawals from the project intake to control water temperature in Grant Creek.

• “Provide channel maintenance flows of 800 cfs to the Grant Creek bypassed reach for a continuous 8-hour duration, once per year, in a minimum of 2 years in each moving 10-year period to promote sediment recruitment and transport from the bypassed reach to Grant Creek.

• “Limit upramping rates to 1 inch per hour during the winter (November 16 through May 15) and 2 inches per hour during the summer (May 16 through November 15). Limit downramping rates to 1 inch per hour from November 16 through May 15 and 2.25 inches per hour from May 16 through November 15.

• “Limit upramping rates to 1 inch per hour during the winter (November 16 through May 15) and 2 inches per hour during the summer (May 16 through November 15). Limit downramping rates to 1 inch per hour from November 16 through May 15 and 2.25 inches per hour from May 16 through November 15.

• “Implement the Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that includes: (1) lake level and temperature monitoring in Grant Lake; (2) flow and temperature monitoring in Grant Creek bypassed reach; (3) flow and temperature monitoring in Grant Creek tailrace; (4) failsafe provisions; (5) a schedule for installing, maintaining, and collecting flow and temperature instrumentation; and (6) reporting.

• “Develop a spill prevention, control, and containment plan and a hazardous materials containment/fuel storage plan to prevent hazardous materials from entering Grant Creek or Grant Lake during construction and operations.

• “Implement the Biotic Monitoring Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that includes monitoring juvenile and adult salmonid abundance and habitat use, and monitoring gravel transport in Grant Creek to assess project effects on salmonid spawning habitat.

• “Conduct biological monitoring in Grant Creek to determine the need for gravel augmentation as well as the effectiveness of the proposed enhancement/mitigation measures, including minimum flows in the bypassed reach and minimum flows downstream of the tailrace, and to evaluate the need for removal of a log jam to increase flow in a Grant Creek side channel.

• “Implement the Vegetation Management Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that includes: (1) invasive plant management and control, (2) revegetation, (3) vegetation maintenance, (4) sensitive plant species protection and monitoring, and (5) pale poppy population management.

• “Implement the Avian Protection Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that addresses migratory species and bald eagles and minimizes potential for electrocutions or collisions with the project transmission line.

• “Develop an Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) re-route plan that includes constructing the southern half of the proposed INHT re-route from the existing route to Grant Creek.

• “Restrict public access to the project using signage and gating/fencing of the access road to address local residents’ concerns about encouraging motorized use near the project and reduce the potential for unauthorized motorized use and on adjacent National Forest System lands (NFS lands).

• “Develop a fire prevention plan.

• “Implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) (filed on January 16, 2018) to protect historic properties in the project area.”